For International Women’s Day (8 March 2015), Cordelia Tucker O’Sullivan explores the profound unity of Humanism and feminism.
Supporters of feminist, anticlerical activist band Pussy Riot outside the Russian embassy in London.
‘Why feminism and not just humanism?’ is a question often invoked by closet misogynists attempting to highlight some imagined incoherence or hypocrisy embedded in the feminist ethical perspective. It is a question which lacks the intended effect, given that it incorrectly defines both Humanism and feminism, but does actually provoke some deeper questions about the historical and philosophical relationship between the two. So, even though the questioner is at best ignorant and at worst bigoted, there is a silver lining.
So what is the difference? Feminism is defined most commonly (and I believe most accurately) as ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of equality of the sexes’, whereas a humanist believes in the authority of the scientific method in understanding the world, rejecting the supernatural (including a belief in god), and in seeking to live an ethically fulfilling life on the basis of common reason and humanity, challenging religious privilege in the public sphere. Not only does the inquirer demonstrably rely on ill-defined terms for their criticism of modern feminism, they clearly have not done their research – the overlap between feminist and humanist beliefs and goals is deep and significant.
To start, the suffragette movement in both the UK and the US was against a background of voracious defence of male privilege by the church, an idea found in bountiful supply in the Bible (among other religious texts). The claim was that god created women as inferior to men, and it is part of god’s plan that it remains that way. Jesus, the earthly incarnation of god, was also a bloke – if he existed at all. We of course can’t relegate this archaic attitude to the past, as the Church of England consecrated its first female bishop in January this year. It therefore seems natural, or even obvious, that there would be a significant overlap between humanist and feminist objectives and beliefs.
In fact, two out of three leaders of the suffragette movement in the US were explicit ‘free thinkers’ (a term used to denote those who reach ‘unorthodox’ conclusions about religion), who criticised the church for their institutionalisation of discrimination against women. The British Humanist Association (BHA) holds an emphatically pro-choice position on the issue of abortion, and actively campaigns for reproductive rights for all women. Diane Munday, the feminist campaigner who lobbied successfully for the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, numbers among their patrons. The BHA and other humanist organisations actively campaign for the provision of human rights to all, and support progress in the direction of women’s substantive emancipation worldwide. Evidently, these are both issues which feminists typically support (I would be slightly confused if I came across a feminist who was ‘pro-life’, let alone who thought that women’s emancipation was no big deal!).
So what exactly is responsible for this extensive common ground amongst feminists and humanists? At first glance, it looks like it might be mere coincidence that those of both ethical stripes pursue similar political goals. Humanists criticise the abortion prohibition because it is grounded in religious exceptionalism, as such the non-religious ought not to be compelled to comply, whereas feminists are more concerned with the woman’s right to choose, and the rights she enjoys over her own body. This is superficial. To get a more coherent and profound analysis of humanism and feminism, we must look to the moral bases of each, which, as it turns out, they have in common. Humanism grounds morality in the welfare of humans and other sentient beings, seeking moral guidance on the basis of our common reason and humanity. As such, the right to autonomy is of paramount importance, as it is a central feature of living a good human life – whatever that entails for the individual (that’s the point). Therefore, a humanist considers the legalisation of abortion a moral imperative not just because it respects the beliefs of the non-religious, but because it is a matter of respecting one’s right to self-determination. Similarly, coherent feminists are not misandrists, they seek equal rights for men and women on the basis that both sexes have the ability and the right to lead self-determining lives for which control and ownership over one’s body is a necessary component.
So, in response to ‘why feminism, and not just Humanism’ I say this: the only real difference between the two is an explicit denial of the existence of a deity for humanists. What these philosophies share is a deep commitment to equal rights, non-discrimination, and the right to self-determination and autonomy, and that is what is really important.
Cordelia Tucker O’Sullivan is a master’s student in political theory at the London School of Economics and a public affairs volunteer at the British Humanist Association.
Ahh, yes. Young people.
“…a question often invoked by closet misogynists attempting to highlight some imagined incoherence or hypocrisy imbedded in the feminist ethical perspective.”
The first sentence tells you all you need to know, and it doesn’t get any better.
Every generation produces a new crop of social justice warriors, often utterly clueless as to just what the objection is to their ideas. Convinced their core concepts are righteous, they are seemingly oblivious to the many inane offshoots they or their fellow idealists come up with.
Push back at the many inanities and the idealist sees rejection of the concept itself. It apparently escapes their understanding that anyone other than “closet misogynists” & other reprobates could find problems in the various popular incarnations of an idea.
In any movement, you want and need the participation of the young, but as they say, “be careful what you wish for”; with their idealism & energy you’ll also get a lot of nonsense of the type you see here.
This too shall pass.
I have posted a response to your comment below, as I felt it was justified in being a separate post as I had a lot to say.
It appears that the opening paragraph boiled your piss in some way, and I’d genuinely like to hear your point of view as to why as this is a conversation I’m interested in, but you’ve failed to actually refute anything in the piece, or express any coherent point beyond some weak “kids nowadays…” tripe. (I get that you were probably going for condescending, but you didn’t pull it off. Sorry.)
Care to try again?
Well said, hear hear.
No coherent point, eh?
It seems Trowan here got the gist of it rather well:
“Of course, anyone who dares to question the feminist orthodoxy is simply dismissed (or worse) as being ‘misogynist’, the catch-all term of abuse to silence any criticism.”
I’ll stand by what I said, especially given that I can include your comment and those of several others as further confirmation.
Stay tuned, in case I post a more detailed comment in order to make even clearer what I meant for those like you, predictably – and reflexively – too up in arms to have already understood it.
I couldn’t put it better myself, Chikkipop. Of course, anyone who dares to question the feminist orthodoxy is simply dismissed (or worse) as being ‘misogynist’, the catch-all term of abuse to silence any criticism.
Unfortunately, feminism has bugger all to do with equality. Its central doctrine is ‘patriarchy’ (or even more bizarrely, ‘The Patriarchy’) which argues that men and boys are a priori ‘privileged’. It, therefore, ignores any instances of discrimination against men or boys because to do so would highlight the inherent fallacy of the patriarchy theory. Feminism, therefore, allows and perpetuates any injustice and inequality that men and boys may suffer.
Actually feminism has everything to do with equality and nothing to do with ignoring the issues of either gender. Working to get rid of the harmful gender stereotypes that affect both men and women will work to produce real change on the issues facing men, women, girls and boys. There are posts below which detail some of the ways feminism helps men, such as believing men should be able to (and encouraged) to have an active role in parenting as women aren’t the only good caregivers, as well as discouraging ridiculing men for possessing ‘feminine’ traits such as emotions.
Feminists (or at least the vast majority – don’t let a small portion of those who are much more extreme colour your opinion of the rest of us) don’t dismiss those who actively engage in conversations about gender equality. It is a sad truth that worldwide women will, in general, encounter more discrimination on account of their gender than men will. Hence the focus, for the most part, on women’s issues. That doesn’t mean we are ignoring, belittling or hating men though.
If that’s how you see feminism, you are either looking in the wrong places for examples of feminists, misunderstanding the message or I guess cannot stand to feel that you have some privelege that others do not enjoy which may be taken away.
I agree Lucy. I am a man and consider myself to be a feminist. However, I hadn’t really thought of myself as one until my daughter told me that she considers me to be a feminist because of my support for ‘one billion rising’ and because of my attitude towards equality and women’s rights in general. I had to agree with her. As well as being a humanist, I am most definitely a feminist.
In fact in some ways the pendulum has swung the other way now. Discrimination against men that the feminist says does not exist. Statistically abuse against men is virtually on a par with that against women. But society still provides help for women in abundance and very little for men. But then society views men as ‘tough’ and ‘ macho’ and so men and boys are reluctant to stand up and be counted. Abuse should be seen as non gender specific, then all ‘might’ be treated equally. But not at present.
I think you’ll find that if you look into the statistics further (especially since we are considering the plight of women worldwide) that women are undoubtedly abused more than men.
However, yes, male abuse does happen. Feminists acknowledge this, and are actually some of the biggest proponents of the idea that traditional gender roles are harmful to all genders – that men should not have to be super strong and unemotional any more than women should be seen as a damsel in distress. Most abuse charities accept anyone suffering abuse (so are non gender specific), so any bias in how people get treated is down to the harmful gender roles society inflicts on us. Something feminism is actively working towards changing. Feminism will bring about greater freedom for all.
Although, I must finish by saying that coming up with an example of how men are mistreated by society (something I think I have addressed) is hardly a reason to discount feminism. There are problems men face that women don’t (paternity arguments, societal pressure to be ‘manly’), however on average a woman will still experience more disadvantages on account of her gender than a man will. This is why the movement is called feminism, as it aims to bring about equality with a current focus on women’s rights, as historically and to this day they have been the underprivileged group. I would recommend reading “Everyday Feminism” by Laura Bates, noting you should approach it with an open mind. If you can read the whole thing and still say you see no evidence that women experience more negatives due to their gender than men then I am out of ideas – I don’t think anything would change your mind. It is a powerful read, particularly if you consider a lot of it is about the younger generation. The generation that are growing up in a society where many people say gender equality is already with us (or that men and women face equal problems), when they can plainly see it is not the case.
I think I was a bit hasty in my comments.
As a father to a girl where we have both experienced physical and mental abuse from the mother/wife, I concede I may be over senisitive. However an injustice is an injustice wheter perpetrated against man , woman or child and personally I would be happier if it was not specifically with a female slant but more to being incclusive of everyone. Intersetingly there are Government Ministers for Women and Children, but not men and this surely demonstratess the social imbalance and ineqality of attitude that prevails againt men. Mankind Initiave have a good Youtube video deemonstrating this.
Will check out the book, thanks. Also I accept more abuse against women than men, but not much more.
That is a fascinating comment re the discrimination of boys and men at the hands of The Patriarchy and the proliferation of it by the Matriarchy! Both in my mind old fashioned institutions that need to be replaced with a more forward thinking unified theory of wo/men. Yes women suffer at the hands of men and there is some way to go before the World of wo/men are equal. But the matter of the fact is since the Industrial Revolution men have lost there place in the world, which has been bred over 2000 or more years and are now suffering the same as women have. That is not to excuse the affect, misogyny but to proliferate injustice makes no progressive sense. Men and Women, Women and Men were put on this planet to compliment each other, not possess or control one and other. So while I applaud those feminists that focus mainly on the welfare and equality of women, I choose to be a humanist and try and move the whole thing on a wee bit! It’s the evolution of thought!
To Chikkipop,
Obviously as a young person I have no idea what I’m talking about, so I probably needn’t reply.
On a humanist website I am surprised to see a comment directly targeting the age of the author. Humanism as a world view has at its heart a respect for other people and a belief in their autonomy and capability in forming their own ideas about the world around them.
You attempt to reduce the author to a ‘social justice warrior’, as if that’s a bad thing. You claim she is clueless about what she is talking about, although I don’t see that you have any basis for this. In fact, as a young female she has a wealth of experience about what life is like growing up as a young female in today’s society (that much should be obvious). Although, I forget, as you are much older and therefore so much wiser of course we should look to you to tell us how the world works. Our own experience is not enough. We should shut up and respect our elders.
Funnily enough, lots of young people are not content to sit back and respect our elders, who often seem content to preserve a society which is not just. As a female, I can expect to earn less in my lifetime (even having accounted for loss of earnings if I choose to bear children). I have a much higher chance of experiencing abuse; from my partners to people I meet on the street. On a day to day basis I endure harassment and contempt purely because I am female and I do not enjoy the same privileges as a man. And I have a right to be angry about this.
You may think some feminist issues are ‘inane offshoots’, but to disagree with the core idea that men and women are equal, and should be afforded the same privileges and the same level of respect whilst probably purporting to believe in equality in a wider sense is just wrong. The movement is called feminisim because an average woman will be disadvantaged more during her life than the average man on the basis of her gender alone. However, we should also note that feminists fighting for gender equality also produce real change benefiting the lives of many men too, men who do not conform to the antiquated ideas of what it means to be a man versus a woman. Those men who want to be stay at home fathers, those men who reject the historic ideas of masculinity and do not want to be fighters, those who believe it is fine for men to be emotional. Feminism brings more freedom for all.
As you say “this too shall pass”. You’re right, the old shall die, and the young shall get older. My hope is the youth of today can retain their belief that it is their right, and their prerogative to make the world a more just place, rather than be sucked into this strange idea that many ‘old’ people seem to have; that to protest against the current order in society is wrong. You’re right any movement needs young people as otherwise movements die. Way to go to alienate those you need to attract.
We are literally the future. Sorry to say you’re less and less relevant with each passing day my friend.
That was an amazing response. I enjoyed it muchly and fervently support the points in your argument 🙂
Brilliant, Young person. Well said!
Ahh, Yes,
“Every generation produces a new crop of social justice warriors”
“The first sentence tells you all you need to know, and it doesn’t get any better.”
What if someone told you that you could believe in gender equality and choose not to be associated with the modern feminism tripe. Of course it isn’t possible to criticize feminism or point out double standards and incoherencies otherwise I’m a closet misogynist, good silencing tactic, very similar to the rhetoric that you can’t criticize islam without being a racist.
Yes feminism has accomplished brilliant things for women in the past, we’re very thankful now lets move on. Is it relevant in first world countries anymore? I don’t think so one bit.
When you see how feminists act when a girl makes her own decision to not identify as a feminist, constantly condescendingly telling people to educate themselves because they must be so ill-informed of the good feminists are doing, like shutting down male abuse centres, funding people like anita sarkeesian to explain misogyny in gaming, spreading out right lies and misinformation, funding and spending $70,000 on publicity campaigns to tell men to sit with their legs closed on public transport, the list goes on and on, it’s utterly laughable and puts the final nail in the movements own coffin, we don’t need feminism in first world countries.
This is the worst article I’ve read from Humanist Association.
Egalitarianism and Humanism go hand in hand, not feminism.
Sincerely
“Closet Misogynist”
I think you’ll find that the vast majority of feminists do not view all those who disagree with them as closet misogynists, and this is not what the article says at all. The first part of the article merely reports on an all too prevalent question which instead of focusing on the actual issue at hand is all about deflecting the conversation on to semantics and which does betray a lack of understanding of what feminism is.
The same happens with atheism – how many people do you meet who don’t really know what atheism is and assumes that those who are atheists believe they can prove God does not exist and are nihilistic?
There are some vocal feminists who do not represent the movement, any more than Richard Dawkins, Pol Pot and Stalin are worshipped by/ represent the majority of atheists. EVERY group has people who are more reactionary, more radical, but that should not be used as an excuse to silence the rest of the group.
Women across the world do not have equality. Those working towards it tend to identify as feminists. Females in the west have many more rights than those in other countries, and feminists work tirelessly to lend their support to those in other countries who do not enjoy the same privileges. However, we have not reached equality in our own country.
You say feminists shut down male abuse centres? If you are talking about the Earl Silverman shelter, that was not shut down by feminists. That was shut down due to a lack of funding. People point the finger and say that feminists suggesting men can never be victims caused this. The vast majority of feminists recognise everyone can be a victim of rape/ domestic abuse, and in the UK organisations like the NHS offer support to everyone. The only difference is that a particular effort has been made in recent years to identify and support female abuse victims, as there are more of them. This doesn’t mean all feminists are trying to shut the discourse over male victims down. In fact, feminism advances the cause for men too – men often don’t report abuse as they feel it reflects on their ‘manliness’, that to be abused by a female is shameful. By recognising men and women as equal we hope to stop the rampant stereotyping of both men and women which impacts on everyone in society.
On your points about Anita, games are often sexist. There are less female characters to play as, and when there are female characters they are often wearing the most ridiculous outfits. In games where all male characters have a full set of body armour, female characters are often left with an armoured bikini and panties, covering their huge boobs and buttocks. Never mind the games that also feature rape. Or the online gaming community that specifically targets women – either to deride them for their perceived lack of ability, or to constantly make unwanted sexual advances towards them. Anita pointed out some of these flaws (much the same as you are doing with feminism) and received death threats, threats of gang rape, threats to her family. As far as I am aware she never said anything about men being lesser than women, she just pointed out that there are problems in the gaming community that tend to be ignored.
And finally – I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up man spreading, as if the fact that lots of people, not just women, have identified this as an unpleasant action completely invalidates the idea that men and women should be equal. Men should sit with their legs closed on public transport if keeping them open is taking up an unwarranted amount of space. I don’t see how anyone could argue differently?
Very well said! I am in total agreement !
“We are literally the future. Sorry to say you’re less and less relevant with each passing day my friend.”
Ah the arrogance of youth: by the time you’re “the future” there will be another bunch of hungry young people snapping at your heels.
Humanism is about egalitarianism. Third wave feminism is about having your cake and eating it too while complaining that it’s making you fat.
I was a feminist in the 1970s before you young people got the rights we fought for and still you want more… I fear for the future and this tripe has no place on a humanist website; it belongs with that idiot Sarkeesian.
Who cares? I care.
I am fully aware that I have many rights that those before me did not enjoy, and I am constantly grateful for the work of feminists before me. But it doesn’t mean that the work should end here.
However, I have not grown up in a world where I am viewed as equal to the men around me. I have entered into a male dominated field of study, and am still viewed with suspicion both by those older than me and by my peers. I have been told to “Get back into the kitchen” and to concentrate my efforts on making my presentations look pretty as they seem to be unaware that my contributions to science are equally as valid as their own. When I walk down the street I will have comments from men passing by almost all the time – either if I look appealing to them I have to put up with catcalling and even groping, yet if I deliberately make little effort they ask me if I am ill or call me names. And yet my experiences are pale in comparison to those of other women.
We have the right to vote, to education and to work. But we are not entirely equal. A societal shift still needs to occur, in the very attitudes our society teaches us.
This is to not even to mention the crucial work feminists do in other countries, and the support feminists in our own lend them. In countries where it is the fault of the woman to be raped, the sole right of men to be educated, the accepted practice for 12 year old girls to be married off to 50 year old men, the prevalence of practices such as FGM … no the world as a whole is an even less equal place. And it is feminists who fight for these people. People often look at feminists in this country and point the finger and ask why they don’t care about those less fortunate in other countries. The answer is that the vast majority of those who do bother to work for the rights of females in other countries identify as feminists. Funnily enough we are capable of fighting for different rights all at once. We are not a homogeneous group as some try to label us.
Just reading a book called INFIDEL by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. About halfway through and a very good read so far.
I don’t see how Feminism – a movement hijacked by female Marxist ideology seeking to force women into work even when they don’t wish to go to work – bares much relation to Humanism, to be honest. My view of Humanism is it suggests people create religion as opposed to religion having created people which means people are far more important than any single belief system held by any political movement. We can create and believe in anything we want to and don’t need to stick to one rigid argument for any longer than it serves a particular purpose. Feminism – as a fight for women’s rights, certainly served an important purpose but I’m not sure it does any longer in its current form. I would much rather see ‘equal rights’ movements such as this actually focus on equal rights for both genders – for the person rather than the gender. The idea that a person of one gender should be automatically assumed to be against the other is delusional in the same way religious people assume Humanists are automatically anti-religious. I’m not anti-religious until a religion turns up on my door and tells me I’m bad and need to be treated in a negative way because I’m not the same as they are. I’ve worked in a number of organisations that were more than 95% female and my experience of female rights in comparison with my rights goes against your assertion females get a rawer deal. I’ve been demoted twice by senior male managers who wanted to appoint unqualified females in my place. I could give you a long list of life experiences I’ve had where women have had the power to do things to me I have not had the power to do to them but I don’t want to make remarks about people who aren’t here to defend themselves. I’d much rather see a movement that concerns itself with bringing the genders together in celebration both of their differences and also their commonalities – of the realities of their humanity – that to me would be more humanistic. To identify the masculine qualities of men as automatically ‘bad’ is to attack the qualities possessed by men that provide the society in which feminism and all other movements are allowed to exist. It is mostly the men in our society who have sacrificed their lives to ensure women have the right to have rights at all. Every man and every woman is an individual and it’s the recognition of this fact that should act as the starting point for any movement that expects to last longer than it takes to right any one singular social injustice. Any such movement needs to be something that brings people together in common agreement and mutual respect rather than start off by attacking a target and telling it ‘if you disagree with my attack on you then you are what I’m accusing you of being’. As a humanist you can of course change your belief system as and when you see fit instead of taking a rigid stance and committing to it for the rest of your life.
1) Feminism is not a religion. People seem determined to describe feminists as a homogeneous group when they are very very much not. The only core idea that feminists ascribe to is that men and women should be equal.
2) If you do not think feminism still has a place, that means you do not recognise that on average, a woman will experience more disadvantage over her lifetime as a result of her gender than a man will. This does not mean men sometimes are at a disadvantage, this is true. Feminists are actually comprise a large portion of those who challenge the aggressive stereotypes of both femininity and masculinity that cause problems for both men and women – ie. that women automatically become the main caregiver to offspring (men are perfectly capable of being this, as a father) and the idea that men should not be overly emotional or lack physical strength (often men who are viewed as such by society are described by feminine phrases, such as sissy, “Stop being such a girl”, “Grow a pair” etc.)
3) On the note above where you suggest feminism has no place in todays world, lets just consider the countries where women still cannot vote, are essentially the property of their husbands/ fathers and are held as responsible when they are the victims of rape. In general across the world, women get a much worse deal. One that results in abuse and death.
4) Feminists are not looking for an us versus them mentaility, in fact if more men spoke out about the fact women across the world do not have equality change would happen much quicker. Look at campaigns such as he for she for examples of high profile campaigns that seek to engage men. If you read the article it is also clear that the author is not suggesting that everyone who does not identify as a feminist is automatically a closet misogynist, read the first paragraph more carefully and see some of the other comments on this post that seek to address the apparent misunderstanding.
5) Your experiences are very valid, and we will not seek to suggest that you may have experienced the raw deal in those situations. However, statistically women experience far more workplace harassment and disadvantage (such as a pay gap, lack of promotion to higher positions such as senior management and discrimination due to the fact they may want to have children – even though this is illegal it still happens). Whilst your own experience is unfortunate it is not the full story, and part of the work of feminists is to illustrate the issues women face that often go unseen by a large majority of society. I would also tentatively suggest that there have been a multitude of studies that suggest that an inherent social gender bias means we view identical female candidates as less qualified than male candidates. See this study (amongst a multitude of others) http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract
6) Masculine qualities are not characterised as bad for the most part – in fact this is one of the main issues. Men who do not display traditional masculine characteristics (such as strength, leadership qualities, ability to drive/ perform DIY tasks to name a few broad characteristics often considered to be ‘male’) are usually ridiculed rather than praised and often with feminine vocabulary (sissy, girly, grow a pair etc.) which suggests it is unfavorable to be female. In contrast if women exhibit these good characteristics they are likely to be ridiculed – a strong woman is often laughed at or stereotyped as a lesbian (for some reason), a woman with leadership skills tends to be described as bossy or be told she should nag less, a woman who is handy with tools again is chastised by society for being too manly (nevermind the constant assumption women are unable to perform any basic tasks themselves).
7) You also briefly touch on the fact mostly men have served in defending this country. I think we should also say there have been mostly male politicians, mostly male scientists, mostly male doctors, mostly male sports stars (the list goes on). Women did not have access to these roles. Within the last century women were shot for pretending to be men when they wished to serve in the trenches. It is only in the last few years that there has been any suggestion of women being allowed on the front line (subject to the same level of fitness, which some women can achieve). Women have been campaigning for this right actually and it has been denied them – warfare has been a boys club, with women allowed to be nurses generally.
Every man and woman should be equal. It is just there are more problems that exist that affect women still, yet it is not the case that (at least the vast vast majority) feminists are advocating for us to ignore men. In fact feminists want them to get on board. It is an uncomfortable subject for many men – they exist in a state where their own privilege is often invisible to them and for it to be pointed out can be difficult. For the most part it is because most men genuinely want equality – to have it pointed out to them that equality hasn’t happened yet is uncomfortable as they feel blamed. We are not seeking to blame men, we want people to realise the injustice that affects all parts of society.
Well said Lucy
There are some disturbingly anti-young comments in this thread from embittered oldies. Sad and surprising on a site like this – or just deliberate reactionary trolling. Pathetic.
What is actually pathetic is someone dishonestly characterizing a comment as being “anti-young” while at the same time calling others “embittered oldies”.
In fact, at least concerning my comment, there was nothing “anti-young” about it.
What I was pointing out is quite well understood. I said that every generation – mine included – produces naive idealists. I did not say that was *all* it produced.
Can you honestly say you don’t recognize the tendency – not exclusively but most strongly associated with the young – while at the same time being quite comfortable tossing around phrases like “embittered oldies”, which suggests you recognize – not inaccurately – a trait commonly associated with another particular age group?
We can have the discussion about both youthful idealism, energy, & willingness to embrace new ideas, and the wisdom that comes with a long life well-examined. We can talk about the value of both young & old, but we can also be critical (as you so casually were), and point out other tendencies common to those of a particular age group.
“deliberate reactionary trolling”
The definition being anything you don’t understand or agree with, I presume.
Chikkipop, I am disappointed you have neglected to reply to my comment aimed at you, whilst you decide to target another comment. Perhaps you are more comfortable flinging half baked ideas about the merits of youth and age than confronting the actual problem of female inequality?
You suggest that to look for equality is naive, and that wisdom comes from a life well examined.
As I suggest, equality is not a naive desire, it is in fact something that we should all (particularly as I assume we are all at least sympathetic to Humanist values) strive towards. We may not achieve full equality (we can’t change everyone) but we can make the world a more just place.
And oh of course, wisdom comes with age. How silly of me to forget… Maybe you should consider the idea that as a young person, growing up now, experiencing the world now, we have a better idea of what it is like to be growing up now. Or is that so hard to understand? We want to change the world such that the next generation will not experience the same problems we faced. We wont do this all at once… three generations ago women got the vote. Two generations ago women could work. One generation ago women were able to experience more sexual freedom amongst other things. Our generation? We want to ensure women are not paid less and have access to the same workplace rights as men. We want to ensure women are not excluded from the highest positions of power, such as Parliament and CEOs. We want to ensure women are not habitually harassed and that society does not deem this acceptable. We want to ensure that the image the media displays of women do not continue to place a woman’s main merit in her beauty. We want to protect girls from forced marriage and FGM. It may not all happen in my life time, but I will continue to fight for these rights until I die. I wont be content with the order of things. If ever I decide not to bother, I truly have left my compassion and humanity behind me, not my youthful ideals.
Great article & with the usual anti responses from trolls I see 🙂
As a female in a western country I have been shocked more recently
about the stereo gender attitudes that some men have towards me.
It seems intrinsic to some men’s thinking & I am still in shock by people I classed as equal friends for the past 5 years ( in a quiz group) saying the women have it a lot easier than men & are either gold diggers, nags that take away men’s fun, sluts, frigid ect. I was even told that I didn’t know what women are like or men which I replied ” Am I an alien then?”
I am so glad that intelligent young women & men are still pushing forward with breaking down horrible attitudes to wards others just because of gender.
Peace & hope to everyone :))
Humanism encompasses feminism, just like it encompasses LGBT rights, racial equality and so on, but as long as these inequalities exist in society, it will be necessary to draw attention to them. In short, we’ll need feminism.
Hopefully one day there will not be feminism any more because it won’t be needed, because discriminating against someone because of their gender will be as unthinkable as discriminating against left-handed people.
I still don’t understand why Feminism still exists when Egalitarianism exists and hasnt fuck up as many things as Feminism has
I just don’t understand what you believe feminism has fucked up? Could you please enlighten me about all the bad feminism has done as I don’t see it.
There was someone above who started to try and claim feminism had done terrible things, and I gave some responses to them. As far as I know they haven’t responded, and someone else agreed with me. If you would be so good as to explain exactly what damage you think feminism has done, please do so.
Egalitarianism is a noble idea. However can you not see the point in having a group of people specifically working towards equality for a portion of society that is known to suffer discrimination? Egalitarianism has hardly won women the right to vote, it didn’t win battles against racism and has definitely not helped gain equality for LGBTQ individuals. In each case where there has been significant progress for groups who lack equality there has been at the forefront a group of people campaigning for the rights of that group. It’s all very well believing everyone should be equal, but nothing gets done unless we actively represent those who are oppressed.
One of the best speeches that I have ever heard, was when Emma Watson spoke about feminism to the united nations. You should find it on youtube. Well worth a watch/listen.
You should watch “Feminism vs. Truth” on Youtube.
Thank you, Sadey. In the article, I paciarultrly liked the comment someone else made to the effect that feminists wanted to free women from the domination of men, only to expect women to do things the feminist way. Exchanging one set of shackles for another is not liberation. And for anyone reading this comment out of context, for the record, I am a feminist.
Feminists destroyed feminism. No one else. They did so by screaming for men to be fired for practicing their freedom of speech. They did so when they demanded urinals be removed from men’s restrooms… as if that has anything at all to do with women. Feminists did so by demanded the end of sports boys enjoy in school and waging on war on boys. The examples are endless of how feminism is no longer about “just wanting equality”.
Feminism is NOT Humanism… and it never will be.
The term feminist didn’t re-emerge until the rise of Humanism… it’s like old feminists believed they were for equal rights but are realizing they never were as they can’t be if they’re only focused on women’s issues. They’re largely totally ignorant of all other issues in the spectrum of human rights. Whether they be men’s or boy’s issues or LGBT issues or issues ethnic minorities face, etc. Feminism used to have a purpose decades ago when women didn’t have equal rights. But those days are long gone… since then the feminist torch was relit and carried largely by anti-male bigots who are female supremacy advocates.
And why do feminists bring up crime saying, “Women are victims of most crime”…. Yes, so are white people. In the US 90% of all interracial crime is black on white crime. What’s your point? All of society is against crime, that’s why we hire police officers. It’s not some social justice warrior issue you can claim society is ignoring.
I know it has been a year since this was posted (and commented on) but this is something that turned me off humanism a bit…
I’m left wing and pro-equality for all, but don’t believe either men OR women are usually oppressed in the places that (most of) the people complaining have lived in/experienced (Though I’ll admit waayyy more needs to be done in the third world; which some of these very vocal feminists deny) and that the people saying they are are (usually) searching for those ways in which they are oppressed (man-spreading…)
I came to humanism because I was sick of saying I’m “anti-feminist” and hated how it made me feel right-wing (Because of the stigma attached; ironically I can see my-alternate-self being scared to say I am a feminist because of the baggage that comes with that…) but seeing this article made me feel like I didn’t want to identify as anything anymore at all.
Feminism and Humanism are separate in my eyes. Like the many different branches of similar religion. The two have similar values but one (feminism) comes without the very vocal radicals and a stigma. I felt Humanism could be the way forward, whilst feminism would be consumed by radicalism.
This article has made me reconsider identifying as anything… Good job.
*Woops! Forgot to proof read. I meant Feminism comes with the vocal radicals and stigma. Sorry!